My takes so far:
1)Arizona is only in this game because of Seattle penalties
2)Russell Wilson is amazing (that pass to Baldwin while scrambling is straight out of Madden)-
3)This year has been a bloodbath as far as major injuries to stars..now looks like Richard Sherman has an Achilles year.
4)Stanton isn’t playing all that badly for a career backup. He’s missed some throws, but his receivers have dropped some, too.

- NBC will make SkyCam the primary camera angle for Steelers-Titans next Thursday. Nice that they will test this option. The one they usef for Falcons@Pats was still far from perfect.

- Martellus Bennett was claimed from the waivers from the Pats. Even considering dragging injuries or lack of effort displayed this year (I don't know a thing about it, just picking from internet commentaries), it seemed like a no-brainer from the beginning (Gronk-insurance, better than D. Allen in catching game) and a Blount-2014 move. However, you might wonder why 27-28 teams didn't pick him up.

Regarding Bennett, I don't know what happened in Green Bay and I find the "failure to disclose" designation with which he was released to be bizarre and worthy of an article in and of itself. (Are they saying that he had an injury that they weren't aware of when they signed him? Isn't the onus on them to do their due diligence as far as physicals, etc?)

I know when he was traded from Chicago, the local media reported that he wasn't single-mindedly devoted to football enough for John Fox. (Not that he had specifically shirked any duties in games or in practice, mind you, but that they had questions about his dedication to football in light of the fact that he clearly has other interests in his life too).

I would say the fact that Belichick got good production out of him last year and snapped him up on waivers is an indication of the difference between Belichick and a lot of other GMs/coaches. I can't imagine Belichick turning up his nose at a guy for being a multi-layered person with interests outside of football, provided that the guy does what's expected of him on the field and in the meeting rooms.

He's listed as questionable and LP on the injury report.
Deadspin ran a piece about the contretemps and many commenters were confused/indignant/clueless about why Bennett would seek season-ending surgery with the Packers but then delay the surgery after getting cut.
Now the Packers are claiminbg Bennett hid a medical issue from them; Bennett says that’s bullshit. If the Packers can prove that Bennett hoodwinked them (and how exactly?), would they be able to recover signing bonus, etc?
My guess would be that Bennett’s been playing with a condition that will need surgery at some point, but he sucked it up because Aaron Rodgers. With Rodgers gone, there’s no need to suck it up any more because the team is going nowhere, so he goes to doctors who tell him, ‘Get the surgery.’ And who knows, maybe the injury got worse. The Packers get peeved because he’ll be out for the rest of the season (not that it matters) and decide to cut him in a way that would let them recoup some of their investment.
I'd be willing to bet everyone knew that he was hurt but he and the team had a tacit agreement that he’d delay surgery. Bennett feels like he played hurt when they had a chance and that the team is screwing him with this response.

Watching the game that way creates of the lack of depth-perception. It's true that you get to see the route-tree, but because I can't really tell how deep the linebackers and safties are it's really hard to see anything but man-coverage (and hard to identify trail-technique vs. good coverage). I also find it hard to see the middle of the field and all the slot/RB/blocking work. It's also really disorienting after the catch (to me anyways).

It's true that the traditional view has some clear dis-advantages, especially when watching teams that throw a lot outside the numbers and deep down field. But it has some clear weaknesses as well. I think the current view plus the cut-shots to the receivers that are part of most of the broadcasts are better than the madden view both because it's smoother after the catch and because I really think watching the blocking really well is more interesting than the pretty marginal view of the coverage/receivers the madden view affords. I can definitely see the other side of the argument though, especially if the view from behind the QB was given a bit more elevation so that the quality of view on the coverage was better (better depth perception).

The best way to show this, is to keep a wide angle so you can still see the wide receivers.
This seems obvious, but with the current sideline angle, they cut off the safeties and the lower routes and zoom in on the QB for some reason.
The worst thing they can do with the new angle is zoom in on the line and lose what's happening on the outside.
The lines will show the depth of the players, I think everyone gets used to it quickly.

I'm sure some of it comes from decades of watching the high sideline view, while not playing Madden. Beyond that, though, I agree with sbond about the depth perception problem. Because the camera compresses in a way the naked eye doesn't, I have a hard time figuring how far downfield something is. The sky-cam angle is useful for some replays, but it doesn't work for me as the primary angle.

And while I can focus on whatever I want from the stands, I tend to end up looking at the ball after a couple seconds.

Seemed like both teams had players dropping like flies last night. Is there a higher instance of serious injury in Thursday night games than in games played on the standard Sunday/Monday schedule? League needs to review the added revenue vs. diminished product argument, as major injuries affect more than just the single game.

I don't know whether to admire those of you with the fortitude to watch the game despite the astonishingly hideous Seattle uniforms or to suggest you immediately seek aesthetic counseling. The Cardinals' uniforms were ludicrous, the white helmet looking like it was grafted on to a completely different design scheme, but the Seahawks' uniforms were aggressively and offensively ugly.

Is there any way we can get a Seahawks-Jaguars Thursday night matchup next season? I figure that would finally lay the awful 'color rush' notion to rest.

Politics and all that crap aside - that Seahawks team should have signed Colin K months ago as insurance. I had to look up the depth chart to find out who was behind Wilson - and they are absolutely screwed if he goes down - and playing behind that putrid mess, it is only a matter of time. Wilson is fantastic, but I fear for his long term health and safety.

Indy's second drive sputters out on a 3-yard tight end dumpoff on 3&15. That had pretty much zero change of picking up the first. That's the kind of neutered backup-QB gameplan Tanier has been talking about lately that doesn't even give you a chance to win.

Lions first two drives: 3 and out followed by a terrible punt, giving Cleveland a FG. Followed by a terrible Stafford interception. Browns promptly score a touchdown. Lions trailing 10-0 (Cleveland’s largest lead of the season).

I thought when coaches make a challenge they have to state what they're challenging.

And then that's all that is evaluated. Because otherwise you start getting into "Turns out there was defensive holding on the other side of the field so while you didn't score the TD, you get an automatic 1st down instead".

Wow bonehead move by Cleveland at the end of the half. They have 1st and goal inside the 5 with 11 secs left and no timeouts. The inexplicably run a QB draw (I think?) and get stuffed. Of course they can't line up in time to spike it, and the half ends. They throw away 3 free points.

The Browns actually have some decent players on both sides of the ball, but they're not good enough to overcome their own multiple unforced errors. And that equals an 0-8 record.

Pittburgh has now let up a 60 yard touchdown pass to the right side and a 60 yard touchdown pass to the left side. Mike Mitchell was playing the deep middle on both plays but he's just not rangy enough to offer any help when the corners make mistakes. At the very least he should be able to get over in time to make a tackle after a long reception.

Wow, Lions appear to be pulling a reverse 1985 Dolphins vs Bears. They apparently don't want the Browns to challenge the 2008 Lions. They're getting outplayed. The Browns should really be up 20-10, if it weren't for their own mistakes. Instead, it's 17-17 with the Browns driving.

A bold prediction: if the Steelers have first and ten, the ball will be handed off to Bell. Just because it hasn’t worked all day and the Colts are the worst team in the league in defending long passes, there is no reason to try anything different.

Haley's playcalling has been disappointing in a lot of ways this season. Yesterday's game followed a trend I've noticed all year: they try a few deep balls early that barely miss, then completely abandon deep passing for the rest of the game. It doesn't really make sense, considering that the offense is largely built for big plays. When the offense has really been clicking the last few years, it's because they've attacked the deep ball often enough for defenses to really worry about it, opening up the ground and short passing games that sustain drives for them. Once they abandon that deep game, they're left with an overexposed counter trey run and Haley's signature 1001 Ways To Run a Wide Receiver Screen.

McCarthy finally lets Hundley make a play and makes a big one, 42 yard pass to Adams on 3rd and 10 just before the two minute warning instead of the typical handoff and hope Capers defense can hold the Bears.

Game tied 17-17 inside 2 minutes, Pittsburgh gets inside the 20 and just waits until 4 seconds remaining to kick the field goal. They'd already missed a 40-something FG and had an XP blocked today, so I would have liked to see them play for the TD more rather than settle for a field goal. It worked out, but it still probably wasn't the best strategy.

They have another chance! The intercepting safety inexplicably celebrated instead of trying to advance the ball (which kinda redeems Lee's 15 yard taunting penalty earlier, because that's who he was taunting at) and SD fails to get a 1st down, hits a bad punt, and it's the Chargers turn to try to fail to defeat Bortles

That rule's been around for a long time. Basically, it works like this:

-A network will stick with a game they're showing to its conclusion.
-If that game ends before the next window, they can switch to "bonus coverage" of another game.
-The bonus coverage has to end when the next window starts, even if the other network has the doubleheader. Eastern time, those windows are 1:00, 4:25, and 8:30. (A weather delay earlier this season brought that last one into play.)
-The one exception to the first rule is that in the markets of teams playing in a late game, that game has to be shown in its entirety, even if it means switching from an exciting ending of the early game that they'd normally show.

Why, you ask? The doubleheader system is set up to give one network a clear window for one game each week. Letting bonus coverage leak into that diminishes the clarity, and thus the value of the TV rights.

I have to agree with this. The only ways in which the two are similar is that they are both obviously limited in some respects, and are both generally better than the median head coach in the NFL. Andy Reid has done just as much, with a lot less talent the last 5+ years than Tomlin has - He's clearly been the much better coach over that frame.

I've never understood the Andy Reid hate. The Andy Reid Clock Management toolset leaves a lot to be desired. But he's consistently had good teams that still play better than expected and his QB coaching may be the best in the NFL. He may go down as this generation's Marty Schottenheimer if he never wins a championship. I'd still probably take him over any other HC other than Belichick and maybe Carroll.

I think three quarters of the league would love to sign Reid tomorrow, even if they'd be stuck owing twenty million to their newly-fired coach. He's atrocious at clock management, but otherwise is a very good to excellent coach.

The NFL rules on when games can be showed or not can make for some ridiculous and somewhat amusing situations. Right now on CBS they can't show the Jags-Chargers game, but they can give us updates as a game winning FG is attempted. So I'm watching other people watching football.

I would really like to see a longer discussion of Keenum from the Outsiders. His DVOA and DYAR are borderline pro bowl level this season, and probably improving after this game. His previous career is pretty bad. Are there certain things he is doing well now that he did poorly before? Is there some evidence of better coaching/ highlighting his strengths and hiding his weaknesses? Is he just kinda doing better at everything? It seems like most traditional announcing puts him in the "game manager" box, but I don't think that describes what I've seen at all (albeit in limited viewing).

Troy Aikman is the most dull, most boring person I've ever heard. How much of the NFLs decline in ratings is his personal fault? Most fans probably don't even realize he's the reason football isn't exciting to them anymore

I realize that it sounds a bit like a “first world problem” (“the prosecco that I mixed with the St Germain for my cocktail really wasn’t chilled properly”) to complain that the Steelers win was not impressive or dominating, and it is probably somewhat annoying to fans of, say, the Chargers or the Bills. But when one sees flashes of how good they really could be, to watch them muddle through and win in a pedestrian fashion can be disappointing.

So thanks to parity, injuries and Goodell, the NFC playoff race is shaping up to be a doozy. For argument's sake, I'll leave the two 4-5 teams-- ARIZ and WASH-- out of the discussion for now. There are 10 teams with winning records and only 6 spots.

A few basic points:

Three of the four division leaders face a difficult month ahead.

RAMS: @MINN, NO, @ARIZ, PHILA, @SEA They play all three of the other division leaders, and their biggest rivals within their division (and that game is away)... They could easily do a Miami and lose 4 of those games-- OTOH, maybe this is simply their year and they split those four, beat the Cardinals, and close out a 12-4 season with wins at Tennessee and home to the Niners.

VIKINGS: LAR, @DET, @ATL, @CAR, CIN Rams home, and then three very tough road games against contenders in a row. They could also do a Miami and lose all four before they meet the Bengals. Final two are at GB (Rodgers??) and home to the Bears. Hard to imagine the Vikings doing better than 11-5, and 10-6 seems much more likely.

SAINTS: WASH, @LAR, CAR, @ATL, NYJ The easiest of the bunch but still three critical games in the middle. Then they play Falcons again in Superdome and at TB... 11-5??

EAGLES: @DALL, CHI, @SEA, @LAR, @NYG First game in Dallas (they close hosting the Cowboys) is everything. Division basically over if Eagles win it, and Cowboys are depleted.. But if they lose it, not hard to imagine they drop a couple more before finishing at home vs. Raiders and Cowboys... 12-4 and the bye probably the likeliest result, but it really depends on next weekend..

Of the WC contenders with 3 losses, it is important to note that the Panthers play NO and ATL away, MINN and GB at home, the Seahawks play Jaguars and Cowboys away, Falcons, Eagles and Rams in Seattle... Advantage Carolina.. And Detroit has the easiest run-in of all the 4 loss teams, followed by the Cowboys if they can only beat Philly next week... Falcons have 5 more games remaining against fellow contenders.. and Packers must play at Pittsburgh in tw weeks, meaning if they can't sweep the Ravens and Bucs at Lambeau, and the Browns in Cleveland, they're out of the discussion and Rodgers will not suit up again this year.

This is the first football I'm seeing this weekend. Brockweiler is awful. Even his completions are near interceptions. If the NFL doesn't care enough about their product to hire the best quarterbacks available, no reason for me to waste my time watching it.

Had to be one of the most Belichekian games ever--aside from Brady the most valuable player was the FB. Who else even has one on the roster any more?
And the score could have been worse--Gronk catch did not hit the ground, Harris PI in end zone not called, Osweiller floating duck throw as he was hit on a 3rd down goes for a long gain.
But no doubt the DVOA splits will show the teams were close.

I think it's fair to say the position is making something of a comeback; according to CBS there are currently 24 fullbacks on 23 rosters in the NFL (the Bills have two of them because management wanted to pretend Mike Tolbert was a HB in the offseason). I think it's fair to say that BB giving a FB 45 snaps and a key role in the scheme in the passing game (hit Von Miller 20+ times and then pretend like you might catch a ball) is a long way out there on the bell curve.

Some times I think it would be interesting to see how BB would build a team if he had more than 2 draft picks in the top 50 in the last 5 years, but then we get nights like last night and I remember how much more entertaining this is. Games like that really do make me doubt the Browns long term strategy will ever work.

Pittsburgh's fullback is a converted defensive lineman too, and the Giants had a former defensive lineman playing fullback a few seasons backwho was even playing a bit both ways (Nikita Whitlock) . I wonder why that's such a trend. Is it just because there aren't many true fullbacks in the college game?

The DVOA splits will again show the Patriots defense was awful, because they gave up some relatively long drives that yielded few points, and gave up 5 yards per carry, while ignoring the fact that the game was out of reach by halftime.

Most Recent FO Features

There's a serious need for defensive help in Kansas City, Los Angeles, and Oakland. In Denver, meanwhile, the Broncos must determine whether or not Case Keenum can really be a long-term solution at quarterback.